It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Au contrair, the moment I saw Bond appear head first over that toilet I knew immediately where the series was heading.
Totally agree it's the worst first appearance by any Bond. Don't know what the hell Campbell was thinking.
I'm one of that small group who thought GE was abysmal and was not remotely surorised by the direction his era took. DAD was the logical conclusion tbh. But TWINE is actually the worst.
Campbell did redeem himself impressively with CR though.
Bloody amazing hand to hand combat with unmatched viscerality in both GE and CR.
All in all pretty watchable films with a certain amount of signature.
Con:
Re-introduction of the DB5, some other "things Bond does", like adjusting his necktie while driving a tank. Putting the focus too much on external things.
Introduction of explosions instead of tension.
Ignorance of laws of physics, at least in GE.
Introduction of the internal affair.
- "it´s Bond, so he should drive the DB5", i.e. lack of confidence
- letting Brosnan try (in vain) to emulate Dalton, Moore and Connery, but hardly having him do his own thing (not an issue at all with Craig), again lack of confidence
- I´m not sure whether I want to blame Campbell for exchanging thrill for action, because I remember by the time of GE and TND I was longing for Bond to catch up with Hong Kong action films. But with GE there started an era that lacked in atmosphere and instead had signposts like the DB5, and the action got more and more bland. Incidentally, even though it made sense that Judy Dench´s M´s office was designed in a minimalistic and practical style, it at the same time also acts as a symbol for the lack of atmosphere in Bond films. I mean not atmosphere in general, but a characteristic Bond film atmosphere.
You raise good points, thanks for the clarification. I think there is a fair deal of atmosphere to be derived from this film, especially the Severnaya sequence and the scene at night between Bond and Alec. It certainly lacks what the Dalton films had in the atmosphere department, that's for sure.
The older I get, the more the "celebration" of Bond in this film becomes apparent. There are sections from the first half of the film that could definitely be trimmed, and serve more as a reintroduction for the audience rather than developing the story or characters.
That being said, I love this film and always will do. This is the quintessential modern Bond film, like CR is the quintessential post-modern Bond film. Campbell is a genius in my eyes, and a true hero of the franchise. :)
I actually thought that GE had far more Bondian atmosphere than some of Glen's later efforts, particularly LTK & AVTAK, but even OP & TLD. Ever since Adam left the scene with MR the traditional eccentric Bondian feel seemed to be missing and GE brought some of that back, at least for me.
I agree on the excess of tensionless & poorly realized action & the lack of confidence, but feel that this actually began in earnest with the 'by the numbers' TND and not with GE, which still had that old school thriller feel to it in my view.
EoN needs a steady hand next time out, especially to correct the direction that SP took. Bring back the exotic, the character, the suspense, the terrific fight scenes.
I think Mr. Campbell understands the character, the arrogance, the cool, the hard-wiring of 007; he'd be as good as anyone, and his effort will easily better Mendes' second attempt.
Send DC off the proper way-- a great script that Campbell signs off on, his vision, kick ass second unit, and David Arnold.
"Hard-wiring" is a very good way if putting it @peter. Campbell fundementally gets the core elements of Bond and how they should form the base for any Bond story. It sounds extremely simple on the face of it, but when skilled autuers like Mendes struggle to understand how it should be done, it becomes obvious just how much of a good fit for Bond Campbell is. He understands that a Bond film is like one big balancing act, and very few manage to keep the balance from start to finish, without sagging in the middle or tailing off towards the end. In my heart, there are few things I would like to see more than Campbell direct another Bond film. Even if the result turned out to be a mess, it would still be fascinating to see what he would do a third time. I'm hoping that Barbara still has his number, and he's not out of the running for the next film yet.
Of course I was worried about Campbell's age at one point, but, so long as he has the vision, then I would gamble he could still deliver a smashing 007 adventure.
I would love to see a send-off for DC that he warrants: maybe the pre-title sequence starts black-and-white as CR did? Maybe Bond and Madeline live in Belize, or some such place? Perhaps she's alone, walking home... she's followed by a stranger, robbed, and killed?
We see DCBond find out who the mugger/killer is and avenge her death in a most violent struggle. Perhaps the final shot also turns into the gunbarrel image and the title song, ala CR?
The credit sequence has images of Bond's disintegrating soul in the aftermath of Madeline's death; horrific images of death that eventually swallow an image of DCBond.
The song ends and
DCBond startles awake on a rainy night. Sweating from another nightmare. He peers over at the untouched side of the bed where Madeline used to sleep... From here, he--
--begins his steps back into the Service. Maybe even (taking a cue from TMWTGG novel) he misguidedly projects blame on Mallory for the death of Madeline. In a state of PTSD, popping pills and drinking, he returns to London to assassinate his ex-superior.
After failing, he's put into rehabilitation (cue the obligatory, but hopefully interesting scenes with Q and Moneypenny-- and leave them out of the rest of the film).
While he's recovering--
SPECTRE breaks their boss, Blofeld, out of prison, and the organization continue on a more avert attack on the free world.
Once Bond is up and running, M sends his 00-agent back in the field on a suicide mission: to crush SPECTRE once and for all, or die trying....
(and chime the bell for the haters, but I'm watching CR right now, I'm moved by Cornell's song, and playing with the theory that Campbell comes back to end DC's run; just a fun exercise, nothing more)
I like the idea of exploring that aspect of the novels, where Bond gets indoctrinated by the enemy and attempts to take revenge on his superiors. I also think it would be a neat idea if Madeline were to die or leave the story by other means than the enemy killing her off. Her death or absense might cause a rupture in Bonds psyche, and he would deal with it like he did at the start of his career, by applying himself to his work.
Of course, I would prefer a standalone adventure that went back to basics, but if they have to bring back Madeline and Blofeld, that would be a neat way to do it. Much better than the revenge/going rogue stories that have been a part of Bond now since Dalton. At least M would have Bonds full support on that mission.
Campbell's second film was a full deconstruction of the Bond character, with all those tropes examined and the real man underneath finally given life.
So, I think it would be a fair to assume that, were Campbell to return for a third time, his final film would be a deconstruction of the Bond villain character. IMO the last few villains have been lacklustre and their plans have been somewhat nebulous. And let's face it, Bond and Bond girl have had enough examination for now with Vesper and Madeline being given a proper role to play. I think its time for a "incidental" Bond Girl, ie someone that gets pulled along for the ride and ends up sleeping with Bond rather than falling in love at the end. And its also time for Bond to step back into the shadows and become a character of mystery again, so that only leaves the villain as a focal point. I was thinking maybe an African warlord with a tragic past, who we feel for even though his trauma caused him to go insane and evil. Then the film could be set in Africa, somewhere Bond doesn't visit, and it would also be low-tech like some members here are hankering for. But that's just my random idea, it doesn't have to be that, but I think the villain will play a larger role is what I'm saying.
I'd like to see more of that going forward. Bond is in every film after all, and we learn about him through the years as we see him react to various situations and scenarios around him. I'm completely against further 'peel back' of the character. It's become quite tiresome to me and that's why I'm looking forward to a soft reboot.
@bondjames I also agree with you about this "we will examine Bond's character/world" approach. Those claims seem to sound more and more hollow with each film. Bond was never intended to be a particularly "interesting" character anyway.
I think it's time to get back to good old fashioned storytelling, where the threat is the main focus, and Bond is called in to take it down.
I agree that GE has an old school thriller feel to it.
The Monaco bit in GE feels immensely nostalgic to me (perhaps mainly because of the music and Brosnan´s nostalgic look when he enters the casino), which IMO is the biggest mistake any Bond film can do. The things Bond does should be natural to him, not remind him of the past. (Lazenby´s reminiscence in his office is another example of this.)
You're right, I guess Silva was kinda the focus. But to me, his backstory was never that compelling. The problem for me there is that we are told too much and not shown enough. Silva was apparently a top agent like Bond in his day, and yet we don't see any evidence of that. All we know for sure is that he's a computer genius, and even that is told to us through inference. The only demonstration of skill or menace from him is shooting someone who is standing right in front of him, stationary. With the Joker, the character that Silva is obviously modelled on, there are so many demonstrations of his mania throughout the film, that the audiences is left in no doubt. With Silva himself, we're expected to believe he's a psychotic because he acts strange.
IMO, we haven't had a truly knockout Bond villain since Scaramanga. Since then we've had bad villains, and villains that are functional for the story they're telling but don't really have much dimension outside of that. It just occurred to me that, if they were to do a standalone film in a soft reboot format, and have Bond and Bond girl take more of a backseat, then the villain and the evil plan would be the obvious thing to fall back on. The beauty of that is that the Villain needs a believable motivation anyway, so the examination of this character could fit much more naturally into a standalone adventure. It could be a really frugal move from a production standpoint - hire one solid actor to give a great performance at the heart of the film, and hang all the other roles around it. The performance could form the spine of the film, and by the time Bond and Villian are fighting it out at the end, it would have real weight because we feel we know this guy almost as much as we know Bond.
I agree and I think it wouldn't be all that difficult to do. I think we're at a moment when that would work very well. The timing is right, after what has come before.
I think we can accept a little "nonsense" in a Bond film for comedic effect or to see some cool action. The "forgot to knock" moment earned Brosnan a big applause and I too find it immensely enjoyable. Thugs have been waiting for their turn since the earlier Connery days, just watching Bond knock the life out of others before finally launching themselves at him. By 1995, it had become a widely accepted conceit in the Bonds. I rather like the startled expression on the soldier's face.
The physics I can partly agree with, though I rather like the stunt work involved. It's true that Bond is never going to catch that plane in free fall since both are technically falling equally fast (if we neglect air resistance), and what little Bond may gain from diving more aerodynamically is never going to suffice to crawl inside the plane and turn its vector almost completely around before hitting the ground. But as with the parachute fight in the MR PTS, the stunt work is impressive and slightly more important to me than the physical reality of the situation. Besides, the physical plausibility is at best a little stretched but not entirely pooped on. We often allow Bond the "five minutes into the future" conceit; well, I for one also allow Bond a "five degrees of physical anomaly" conceit. ;-)
I wouldn't get too worked up over it if I were you, @Jazz007. Enjoy the PTS for what it is, even if it isn't a textbook example of pure physics or or the most solid psychological probability. Even the "serious" and "realistic" Nolan Batman films defy the laws of physics in some inconspicuous places. But it doesn't eat away the pure entertainment value for me. ;-)
I finally got round to seeing Logan, and while I enjoyed it, I found it a little too angst ridden for my liking as well. Having said that, Logan has always been that kind of character (from the start of Jackman's interpretation). Similar to Craig's Bond in that respect. Started out with issues....and it remains to be seen how it closes out in the case of Craig.
Exactly! It's perfectly set up. It wouldn't be a complex script to write, or a costly film to shoot. All they need is a strong director to pull it off, since it really would be a tricky balancing act to get right. The best thing about it is that, if we're constantly cutting back and forth between Bond and Villian, one setting up the dominos, the other knocking them over, there wouldn't even be the need for excessive action. The film would be so kinetic by design, that they could get away with more sneaking and genuine spy work, and only build to the action when it is deserved. We would see the gap between Bond and Villain getting narrower and narrower, and it would give everything a natural tension until they inevitably collide.
I think you're underestimating the challenge of staring down the history of the previous 24 films.
And c'mon, Campbell is probably the most important Bond director after Young. He jump-started two very different eras of Bond.